Federal Election Polls

[Smallc]

http://www.pressprogress.ca/6_charts_show_stephen_harper_has_the_worst_economic_record_of_any_prime_minister_since_world_war_ii

You'll excuse me if I give the CBC a better place on the credibility meter than Press Progress.

Also, that says nothing of your claims. You were wrong. Moving on.

Edited August 1, 2015 by Smallc

[On Guard for Thee]

You'll excuse me if I give the CBC a better place on the credibility meter than Press Progress.

Also, that says nothing of your claims. You were wrong. Moving on.

I thought you right wingy guys didn't like the CBC. Or are we seeing a typical any port in the storm reaction? But yes, please move on.

[Smallc]

I thought you right wingy guys didn't like the CBC. Or are we seeing a typical any port in the storm reaction? But yes, please move on.

I have no reason to doubt the chart from the CBC. I have huge cause to doubt the charts from press progress, given that they have an agenda they're trying to push. They're completely ignored the context of the world's worst economic climate since the 1930s.

Back to your point, those charts say nothing of deficit or debt. You were 100% wrong, as the CBC chart shows.

[On Guard for Thee]

I have no reason to doubt the chart from the CBC. I have huge cause to doubt the charts from press progress, given that they have an agenda they're trying to push. They're completely ignored the context of the world's worst economic climate since the 1930s.

Back to your point, those charts say nothing of deficit or debt. You were 100% wrong, as the CBC chart shows.

I guess they just made up those charts for fun eh?

[Smallc]

I guess they just made up those charts for fun eh?

I guess you don't know enough about it to have an actual debate.

[On Guard for Thee]

I guess you don't know enough about it to have an actual debate.

Harper had to sell (at a loss) the gov held shares in GM, and "steal" 2 billion from the contingency fund to try and fake a surplus. Turns out even that couldn't offset the downturn we are in. I guess maybe he didn't see the oil biz imploding, but he is supposed to be an economist, and as such why all the eggs in one basket?

[Smallc]

Harper had to sell (at a loss) the gov held shares in GM

How long should they have held onto them? That divestment was planned months ahead. Apparently though, you think that revenues from asset sales somehow don't count.

and "steal" 2 billion from the contingency fund to try and fake a surplus.

If one existed, you might have a point. As one never has....

Turns out even that couldn't offset the downturn we are in.

You think that a government with $300B in revenue and expenses can't find savings totalling .3% of that?

I guess maybe he didn't see the oil biz imploding

How many people did?

but he is supposed to be an economist

How many economists predicted the crash?

and as such why all the eggs in one basket?

If he had put all his eggs in one basket, the government never would have owned any GM stock.

[On Guard for Thee]

You still don't understand the contingency fund I see. The GM stock was just a government bailout package back in 2009. Harper now throws millions at Toyota, as if they needed it, but you'd have to be more than a tad naive to not see the timing here. Anyway, now the eggs are back in that one basket are't they.

[Smallc]

You still don't understand the contingency fund I see.

You don't understand that there isn't one, I see. It's a budget line item, and nothing more.

The GM stock was just a government bailout package back in 2009.

Why would a government putting all their eggs in the oil basket do such a ting?

Harper now throws millions at Toyota, as if they needed it, but you'd have to be more than a tad naive to not see the timing here. Anyway, now the eggs are back in that one basket are't they.

You think the government doesn't do anything else? Do you actually pay attention?

[On Guard for Thee]

You don't understand that there isn't one, I see. It's a budget line item, and nothing more.

Why would a government putting all their eggs in the oil basket do such a ting?

You think the government doesn't do anything else? Do you actually pay attention?

3 billion dollars is not just a line item. The rainy day fund has been explained here various times but you still deny it, so carry on.

[Smallc]

The rainy day fund has been explained here various times but you still deny it, so carry on.

You're right, I have explained it several times. It's unallocated money within the budget.

[On Guard for Thee]

You're right, I have explained it several times. It's unallocated money within the budget.

Nope. It's money allocated to the contingency fund, to be used in case of some sort of emergency. Not the "emergency" of trying to deliver a balanced budget ahead of an election. However it's quite transparent by now, so save your breath trying to say it somehow doesn't exist in your mind.

[Smallc]

Nope. It's money allocated to the contingency fund

What's that? Is there like, a bank account somewhere or something?

[On Guard for Thee]

What's that? Is there like, a bank account somewhere or something?

Yes it is. Only i this case it's the government's bank account..

[Smallc]

Yes it is. Only i this case it's the government's bank account..

Is there a contingency account somewhere?

[On Guard for Thee]

Is there a contingency account somewhere?

Yes there is, but it's much smaller now.

[Smallc]

Yes there is, but it's much smaller now.

You don't understand it. It's not a rainy day fund in the way that you're thinking. It's a budget cushion - an unallocated line item - and nothing more. Without a surplus, it means nothing, and with a surplus, it only results in more money left over at the end of the year.

[On Guard for Thee]

You don't understand it. It's not a rainy day fund in the way that you're thinking. It's a budget cushion - an unallocated line item - and nothing more. Without a surplus, it means nothing, and with a surplus, it only results in more money left over at the end of the year.

Here 's a simple version of it. Let's say you get few hours OT here and there and you decide I'll take that and put it into a separate pocket of my jeans in case the fridge blows up or the car goes on the fritz. You base your regular monthly budget on your regular income and keep the other separate. If for soe reason you have a slow month for your regular income and tap that side pocket, it's gone. No more rainy day fund.

[Smallc]

Here 's a simple version of it. Let's say you get few hours OT here and there and you decide I'll take that and put it into a separate pocket of my jeans in case the fridge blows up or the car goes on the fritz. You base your regular monthly budget on your regular income and keep the other separate. If for soe reason you have a slow month for your regular income and tap that side pocket, it's gone. No more rainy day fund.

So you don't understand it. There's no separate pocket savings account. Only a line item that works as a cushion. Sorry.

[On Guard for Thee]

So you don't understand it. There's no separate pocket savings account. Only a line item that works as a cushion. Sorry.

And when you take the air out of the cushion..no more cushion. Sorry you don't get it.

Edited August 1, 2015 by On Guard for Thee

[Smallc]

And when you take the air out of the cushion..no more cushion. Sorry you don't get it.

The air always gets taken out of this cushion. Usually at the end of the year.

[On Guard for Thee]

The air always gets taken out of this cushion. Usually at the end of the year.

No. But I'm tired of trying to explain this to you. Carry on with your version.

[Smallc]

No. But I'm tired of trying to explain this to you.

There was no fund to take the money out of. It simply wasn't allocated.

Edited August 1, 2015 by Smallc

[On Guard for Thee]

A contingency fund has money that you add and take away. The money exists in a separate account separate from that of General Revenues. Alberta had (has?) one. Several other places as well. The government of Canada doesn't have one.

They have had one for a number of years, and they still do, although it has bees stripped of 2 billion to try and balance the budget. Which sems to have failed. But of course Harper isn't stupid, he knew if he gutted the RDF it wouldn't be available to be used in any other party election promises. Act of desperation obviously.

[waldo]

They have had one for a number of years, and they still do, although it has bees stripped of 2 billion to try and balance the budget. Which sems to have failed. But of course Harper isn't stupid, he knew if he gutted the RDF it wouldn't be available to be used in any other party election promises. Act of desperation obviously.

that Smallc guy sure has a most selective, self-serving interpretation! Directly from the Harper Conservative 2015 Budget (Page 11):

"Having balanced the budget, the set-aside for contingencies will continue to protect the fiscal outlook from global economic uncertainty, and will be used to reduce the level of federal debt, if it is not required."

of course, as you highlight, to actually claim a balanced budget, that "set-aside for contingencies" was dipped into... a $2 billion dip! Apparently, to Harper Conservatives this "set aside for contingencies" includes an election focused budget where prior promises to balance the budget are "contingency worthy"!